pThe U.S. Supreme Court handed a victory to Medtronic Inc on Wednesday, ruling that patients cannot sue medical-device manufacturers in state court over harm from a device that has approval from federal regulators./ppBy an 8-1 vote, the court ruled a 1976 law creating federal safety oversight for medical devices bars state-law claims challenging safety or effectiveness of devices that have won premarket approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration./ppThe decision was the Supreme Court's first ruling on the legal effect of the FDA's approval of a medical device on liability lawsuits, Medtronic said./ppThe ruling could benefit other device makers, who have argued that the FDA's judgment that a product is safe and effective should protect companies from being sued for liability in state court./ppThe Medtronic case involved a New York man who was injured in 1996 when a doctor inflated a balloon catheter during an artery-clearing procedure./ppMedtronic has said the doctor in the case used the catheter contrary to labeling instructions and in a patient for whom it was not recommended. The company no longer makes that specific catheter./ppA federal trial court in Albany, New York, dismissed the lawsuit, finding the patient was not entitled to state law remedies because of the FDA's prior approval of the device./ppA U.S. appeals court agreed that the lawsuit was pre-empted by federal law, and the Supreme Court upheld that decision. /p

pThe US Supreme Court has dismissed a legal challenge to a domestic anti-terrorism eavesdropping programme.
President George W Bush authorised the monitoring, without a court order, of international phone calls and e-mails of US citizens after the 9/11 attacks. /ppThe American Civil Liberties Union argued that Mr Bush did not have the constitutional authority to order the programme, which ended last year. /ppThe Supreme Court gave no explanation for its ruling. /ppstrongLegality questioned/strong pThe domestic spying programme was denounced by Democrats and rights activists when it was disclosed in 2005. pA group of civil liberties activists, journalists, academics and lawyers challenged the spying programme in the courts, arguing it violated a 1978 rule prohibiting surveillance of American citizens on US soil without a warrant. pIn July last year, an appeals court struck down a lower court's ruling that found the programme to be unconstitutional. pThe appeals court, based in Cincinnati, dismissed the case because the plaintiffs had failed to show that their communications had been monitored. pBut the Cincinnati judges did not rule on the legality or otherwise of the programme. pThe president rejected claims that he broke the law by ordering surveillance without first securing warrants. He argued the eavesdropping programme was necessary and was targeted against al-Qaeda. pThe Bush administration has so far refused to release documents about the programme that might reveal who was under surveillance. /pp
/p

The content contained on the web site has been prepared by Lawyer Media News as a service to the internet community and is not intended to constitute legal advice or a substitute for consultation with a licensed legal professional in a particular case or circumstance. Legal Blog postings and hosted comments are available for general educational purposes only and should not be used to assess a specific legal situation. Best Law Firm Website Design - Attorney Web Design That Works